Computed Ethnicity: Should the Name--Alias field be used when generating Computed Ethnicity?
No, "Alias" is not used and should not be used to generate Computed Ethnicity. Computed Ethnicity records the ethnicity based on last name and/or maiden name using a computer algorithm. Alias is not part of the algorithm.
Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual.
The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.
Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging.
CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is SSF6 coded when CS tumor size is coded from a clinical report, not from pathology? See Discussion.
A breast ultrasound displays a 2 cm tumor. Core biopsy diagnosis is lobular carcinoma in situ. No further record for patient. Tumor size coded to 020. Should SSF 6 be coded to 010 "Entire tumor reported as in situ (no invasive component reported)" because it was pathologically confirmed, or to 888 because size was coded based on a clinical exam - the ultrasound?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code SSF6 888 [Clinical tumor size coded]. When the size recorded in CS Tumor Size is not determined pathologically, 888 must be coded in SSF6. Note: The code in SSF 6 pertains to pathologic tumor size. It describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded.
MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code should be used with invasive papillary carcinoma with cribriform carcinoma component? There is also DCIS adjacent to the invasive tumor, predominant cribriform and focal papillary patterns. This is a single breast tumor. See Discussion.
Registry staff is divided between 8523 and 8255.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
First apply rule H9, code the invasive. To determine the code for the invasive histology, start with rule H10 and stop at rule H15. Code the histology 8503 [papillary]. Papillary (8503) and cribriform (8201) are listed in Table 1 as specific duct types, but in this case they are invasive.
Table 1 and Table 2 will be clarified in the next version of the MP/H rules.
Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: Multiple cavernous hemangiomas diagnosed in 1995 are treated with radiation and steroids in 1996. A 1999 MRI states there is no interval change with the lesions in selected location since 1995. How many new primaries should be reported if a 2006 MRI states there are additional cavernous hemangiomas in other parts of the brain? See Discussion.
7-03-97 PE: Past history significant for cavernous hemangiomas. Has had radiation and was on high-dose steroids in early 1996. Patient reports subsequent MRI done and neurologist gave "clean bill of health."
1-26-99 MRI BRAIN. Clinical information: history of intracranial cavernous hemangiomas. Comparison with prior brain MRI in 12/15/95. IMP: Upper medullary, right parieto-occipital, left frontal cavernous hemangiomas without interval change in size as compared to 12/15/95.
1-25-06 MRI BRAIN. Clinical info: history of prior radiation for cavernous angiomas. Comparison made with prior exam on 1/26/99. Impression: Multiple, variable sized cavernous angiomas within medulla, pontomedullary junction, midbrain, & cerebral hemispheres. Dominant lesion centered within posterior pontomedullary junction. FINDINGS: 8mm lesion in posterior pontomedullary junction. 2mm lesion within right paracentral portion of medulla. Several less than 5mm lesions noted within brain stem bilateral. Two, less than 1-2mm, areas within right inferior aspect of right and left cerebellar hemispheres. 1cm lesion centered within white matter within right posterior parietal/occipital region. Several small, less than 1-2mm, lesion within surrounding white matter. 3rd dominant lesion within left frontal lobe equal 6mm. Several 1-2mm foci of susceptibility artifact within subcortical white matter of high right and left cerebral hemispheres consistent with small cavernous angiomas.
Benign and borderline brain and CNS tumors diagnosed January 1, 2004 and later are reportable. Multiple tumors in different brain and CNS sites are separate primaries. Different sites are those with ICD-O-3 topography codes that differ at the first, second, third or fourth character.
There are four reportable primaries in the scenario described above.
CS Tumor Size--Lung: If a 5/11/07 CT showed a 6.5 cm LLL mass and a 7/24/07 CT showed 8.4 cm LLL mass, do we code the larger tumor size identified within four months of diagnosis or do we code the first size documented at the time of diagnosis?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code the larger tumor size.
Reportability--Lung: Is carcinoid tumorlet of the lung a reportable disease? See Discussion.
The literature on this is rather ambiguous as to whether these tumorlets (defined as <0.5 cm) are benign, such as atypical hyperplasia, or actual carcinoid tumors.
Carcinoid tumorlets are not reportable. The histology can be similar to typical carcinoids; however, they are <5 mm in diameter and are benign/nonreportable.
Multiplicity Counter: Should this field be coded to 99 for cases of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)? See Discussion.
The MP/H rules state to abstract these cases as a single primary. The Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary field is coded as a single primary with a value of 32 (FAP with carcinoma), but the Multiplicity Counter seems to be unknown.
Assign code 99 [Multiple tumors present, unknown how many] for cases of FAP when the number of tumors is not stated.
Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?
"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."
Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?
Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.
Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.
Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.
The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
An official website of the United States government
Home